Taxacom: Order Anura - correct authorship?

[Tony Rees]

On the other hand, Amphibian Species of the World contends that Dubois'
argument is flawed in that "Anoures" was originally proposed as a family,
and is an unavailable name at that rank...

On Thu, 23 Feb 2023, 10:00 am Tony Rees, <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:

> It might for now, but I also have some (other) genus names plus names at
> other ranks without authorship, so it is not a general solution...
>
> Separately, I have just remembered that the principle alluded to above of
> "prevailing recent usages" applies to the name itself (where multiple
> variants are in use), not to the ascribed authorship; if the latter is
> wrong, it can simply be corrected; so my example counts previously given
> via e.g. Google Scholar are a misdirection...
>
> That said, my present inclination is to follow Dubois (2019, 2020) and
> ascribe authorship of Anura to Dum?ril (1805 not 1806, thanks Neal), but
> would be open to being persuaded otherwise if there are alternative views
> around; also to update the Wikipedia and Wikispecies entries to read the
> same (also maybe Wikidata, though not too familiar with that as yet).
>
> Regards - Tony
>
>
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 at 09:39, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Tony,
>> Anura listed without authorship would distinguish it from the genera with
>> authorship. So what's the problem with blank authorship?
>> Cheers, Stephen
>>
>> On Thursday, 23 February 2023 at 11:10:12 am NZDT, Tony Rees <
>> tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> If we try to establish "prevailing recent usage", since 2000 Google
>> Scholar has 81 hits for "anura dumeril" versus 338 for "anura fischer".
>> This may change, perhaps, with a more recent start date, per the more
>> recent publications by Dubois... On the other hand, it would be interesting
>> to establish how many folk here or elsewhere agree with Dubois' analysis of
>> the situation, also bearing in mind that Dum?ril apparently did not use the
>> name in the same form (i.e., he used Anoures, not Anura).
>>
>> - Tony
>>
>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 at 08:53, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Stephen, your point is taken, however in this particular use case I
>> wish to distinguish between the various instances of the name "Anura" in my
>> database, and authorship is the principal method available... so at present
>> I have:
>>
>> Anura (previously no authorship, "Dum?ril, 1805" added as a placeholder
>> just now)
>> Anura (S.V. Juzepczuk) O.V. Tscherneva, 1962 accepted as Cousinia Cassini
>> in F. Cuvier, 1827 (Asteraceae)
>> Anura Agassiz, 1846 accepted as Anoura Gray, 1838 (Chiroptera)
>> Anura Bellardi, 1873 accepted as Pisanianura Rovereto, 1899
>> (Littorinimorpha)
>> Anura Hodgson, 1841 (uncertain) (Aves)
>> Anura Nicolet, 1847 accepted as Neanura Macgillivray, 1893 (Poduromorpha)
>>
>> (In this case the first entry is at order rank, the others are genera,
>> but in course that cannot always be presumed)
>>
>> So if I want to make a relationship between any other name and a
>> particular instance of "Anura", I can see which one to choose.
>>
>> I note that ION also has another name instance, "Anura Fitz. 1843" which
>> I have not yet investigated further.
>>
>> It does not bother me too much if "Anura Dum?ril, 1805", "Anura Dum?ril,
>> 1805" and "Anura Fischer von Waldheim, 1813" (or just Anura Fischer,
>> according to Dubois, since he was not a "von Waldheim" at the time) are all
>> in circulation so long as they can be recognised as referring to the same
>> taxonomic entity, however I would like to select one, perhaps according to
>> the principle of "prevailing recent practice" if not absolute correctness,
>> for use in my own system - and if justifiable, amend the relevant entries
>> in Wikipedia and Wikispecies (which currently do not agree with each other)
>> accordingly.
>>
>> Regards - Tony
>>
>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 at 08:08, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Tony said "I realise that the ICZN Code does not regulate names and/or
>> cited authorships above the rank of family (or more correctly,
>> family-group), however I was wondering whether anyone can assist me with
>> the "best" i.e. most correct authorship for the amphibian order Anura."
>>
>> I say: There is no "correct" authorship, precisely because it is not
>> regulated by the ICZN Code. There are bibliographic facts about where and
>> when the name appeared, but these facts have no relevance to taxonomy or
>> nomenclature. Priority does not apply. I do hate it when people fixate on
>> irrelevant details!
>>
>> Cheers, Stephen
>>
>>